I can see the shoreline and impassables much better now! The only thing is that the adjacent terts in the lower right still all look as one but once the map is made you could just hover your mouse to see adjacents with bob so this is not a big deal.

Funkyterrance wrote:I can see the shoreline and impassables much better now! The only thing is that the adjacent terts in the lower right still all look as one but once the map is made you could just hover your mouse to see adjacents with bob so this is not a big deal.

thanks FT. glad to see you have Bob also.i will try to still improve those terts as i do updates.

I have changed the Losing Condition to:Players failing to hold any land position will be eliminated.Reason:The objective of the mission was to land troops and move forward from there.The landing craft, and minesweepers are able to be attacked from shore, and if there is someone left in them, it kind of represents a withdrawal from any shore position. Mine positions do not count as these are killer neutrals.

[quote="cairnswk"Dukasaur, i would consider this although as previously explained it may create confusion with the legend. Can you provide the reference where you obtained this info from please...for consideration.[/quote]

Oneyed wrote:[quote="cairnswk"Dukasaur, i would consider this although as previously explained it may create confusion with the legend. Can you provide the reference where you obtained this info from please...for consideration.

the Battle ship as the best ship was past. the new battle ship Dreadnought gived the name for new class - Dreadnought. it was common use for the best ships.

Oneyed[/quote]

Mmmm. First sentence of that reference...."The dreadnought was the predominant type of battleship in the early 20th century."So from that i think i will stick with battleship as the designation....especially since Elizabeth was a "battleship" not designated as a Dreadnought.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Al ... _Gallipoli

cairnswk wrote:Mmmm. First sentence of that reference...."The dreadnought was the predominant type of battleship in the early 20th century."So from that i think i will stick with battleship as the designation....especially since Elizabeth was a "battleship" not designated as a Dreadnought.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Al ... _Gallipoli

cairnswk wrote:Mmmm. First sentence of that reference...."The dreadnought was the predominant type of battleship in the early 20th century."So from that i think i will stick with battleship as the designation....especially since Elizabeth was a "battleship" not designated as a Dreadnought.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Al ... _Gallipoli

cairnswk wrote:Mmmm. First sentence of that reference...."The dreadnought was the predominant type of battleship in the early 20th century."So from that i think i will stick with battleship as the designation....especially since Elizabeth was a "battleship" not designated as a Dreadnought.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Al ... _Gallipoli

Au contraire, follow the link through, and you will see:

HMS Queen Elizabeth (pennant number 00) was the lead ship of the Queen Elizabeth-class of dreadnought battleships,

I did a bit of looking but unfortunately I've never mastered the art of Internet searching. I can't find anything older than about 1986. If we were at a real library I could show you books with original newspaper stories from 1915 and you would see that the newspapers of the time almost always referred to the battlewagons only as Dreadnoughts.

Anyway, it isn't something I'd lose sleep over, but I just thought it would improve the historical flavour.

Mmmm. I won't lose any sleep either, but...I think if Admiral Sir John Fisher called them Battleships, we can also.

"In 1903 the Royal Navy still envisioned a fighting range for battleships of only about 3,000 yards, although other navies were firing at much longer ranges. But since 1899, shooting in the Mediterranean Fleet under Admiral Fisher had shown that 6,000 yards might become the battle range of the future, and that, with proper use of the fire control system evolved by Percy Scott, ships could obtain fair accuracy at ranges up to 8.000 yards. This knowledge, in the hands of Admiral Sir John Fisher and his supporters, led directly to the development of the Dreadnought. In notes made by Fisher in May 1904 for the Committee on Designs, the influence of the long-range gunner is paramount. In the section of these notes dealing with the Type B {Dreadnought) Battleship Fisher makes the following statements:

This ship is a battleship and will have to fight other battleships. . . . This will naturally be at long range, so that gunnery skill can be used to the best advantage. . . .Now the results of all long-range shooting has gone to prove that if we wish to make good shooting at 6,000 yards and above, the guns must be fired slowly and deliberately, and the shots marked. . . .It is on the number of hits, not the number of shots fired that the action depends. . . .The fast ship with the heavier guns and deliberate fire should absolutely "knock out" a vessel of equal speed with many lighter guns, the very number of which militate against accurate spotting and deliberate hitting. . . .The speed of firing at long ranges is no longer limited by the loading of the gun, but by the limitations imposed by the accuracy of fire.

Long-range guns and long-range gunnery provided the overriding impetus in the development of the battleship in the decade leading up to the Dreadnought.The Royal Navy's analysis of naval battles in the Russo-Japanese War convinced them of the superior accuracy of the big gun, of 10- or 12-inch bore. They also concluded that only the shell from the big gun could have a really significant effect on the enemy's armored ships. Thus they clearly saw that the guns of 7.5 or 9.2 inches had comparatively small value when mounted on battleships as a supplement to 12-inch guns. But the Royal Navy, as well as most foreign navies, then mounted such guns on their newest battleships, substituting them for the smaller, usually 6-inch, quick firer, long in use."http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.p ... ther-look/Battleship Classeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:B ... ip_classes

all where pre dreadnought class battleships. Due to the fact that the dreadnought was not the same class of ship, the dreadnought was still a battleship. Keeping the BS for battleship is more than OK as one of the ships I checked is even French.

As for Dukasaur saying about the newspapers, papers would of inflated the facts (unheard of today ) for propaganda reasons.

Oneyed wrote:yes not all ships were (in Gallipoli campaign) dreadnoughts. I have nothing against term battle ship, just dreadnought fits better with time period.

Oneyed

Oneyed...a battleship is a class of naval vessel. a Dreadnought is a class of battleship. For me, battleship fits better.Now please, enough of this to and froing over a minor point. I swear you'd have it out with JC himself. Discuss something in the gameplay tactics for goodness sake.

He means you like arguing over silly things just for the sake of arguing.

cairns, story, you have 25 Arp, should this not be 25 Apr?Losing condition - a lot of the starting positions are next to each other, each SP has two territs on the land. So in a team game, players will get eliminated before a go happens. Am I correct in this assumption? If so, does this not strike you as bad for all team games? The position that you have as Gabi Tepe and Saraijik can even be eliminated first go as a battleship can bombard Gabi Tepe and FS + Sari can attack the other territ in land. This is going to be very bad for some games, including 1v1. I prefer the wording you have on the SP map. Not holding a non battleship territ. This seems to me far more balanced and stops all problems with starts. As I said, if my assumption is wrong, then so be it, disregard. Quick question, why have a losing condition?

He means you like arguing over silly things just for the sake of arguing.

koontzz, there is no need to give my secrets away.

cairns, story, you have 25 Arp, should this not be 25 Apr?

that was a trick...not.

Losing condition - a lot of the starting positions are next to each other, each SP has two territs on the land. So in a team game, players will get eliminated before a go happens. Am I correct in this assumption? If so, does this not strike you as bad for all team games?

Unfortunately, i cannot give the xml a distribution layout so that it distributes every starting position to the best benefit....so i guess this will have the same sort of starts that Salem does, and we can best group these so that everyone is evenly spread.In real war, and particularly in this battle, there were some immediate casualties, and likely those who "jump in" will bombard the crap out of everything with their Battleships to eliminate opponents, and yes that is also what happened in this battle. It would be wrong not to have some positions on the map as "Turkish" defence positions, and if you get one of those, then you're likely to come under fire from battleships.However, like all maps, there will be a strategy developed to ensure your survival, and if that means a couple of games have to be played with team mates and lady luck, then so be it.

The position that you have as Gabi Tepe and Saraijik can even be eliminated first go as a battleship can bombard Gabi Tepe and FS + Sari can attack the other territ in land. This is going to be very bad for some games, including 1v1.

Indeed.I have moved Dumbrek start to Halil-eli,and Saraijik to Kehlia Beach.

I prefer the wording you have on the SP map. Not holding a non battleship territ. This seems to me far more balanced and stops all problems with starts. As I said, if my assumption is wrong, then so be it, disregard. Quick question, why have a losing condition?

Well, yes i did also until i thought much more about it.BY only having the land territories as the requirement will take the Minesweepers and all landing craft out of the requirement picture also which is really advantageous, since these can be also be bombarded...the objective of the invasion was to land troops and move forward inland, which didn't occur.So having the land territories really means you have to hold onto your land....battleship targets have been removed from start positions.